Well thanks ZEMBANU! I actually can't put a higher resolution image even if I upload it at the highest resolution possible (which is what I do) because I need to have a Pro account and for that I'd need to pay and I'm not sure if it's a really good way to go yet. Sorry

Where to start for a ''newcomer'' to this topic. Phil is one of the most respected (at least by me) photographers on the forum, there's no need to ignore him. He's really a lot of knowlegde and skills. It's just stupid not to listen to him, really.Well, you might by now not even listen to me anymore, but okay. My skills arent that good (yet), but I know quite a bit about the tech side of cameras. You want to have a $2000 camera with the best IQ. You do not know what you want as you have no experience. You have a way too small budget for what you want. You do not know how a sharp image, and how detail, come into existence I guess.What should I say? Phil's right, and, the 8MP Canon 350D blows me away when it comes to noise and detail, even compared to today's cameras. You could get the 350D with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS and 50mm 1.8 for around $450. The 350D's from 2004.

Now Im going to tell you something about the 50D. It's from 2008 and has 15 MP. Bundled with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VR it's crazy. The RAWs (do you know what RAW is?) are full of detail you will never believe, because you think it's from 2008 and only 15 MP so... So what, exactly? Did you know that if you have a 15MP camera, or the 12MP D700 as mentioned, and you want to print it twice as big, you need to have 12^2 megapixels? 144, that's right.You, as a beginner, wont really have that much benefit from the 36MP D800. Believe me. You can get a 50D with the mentioned Tamron for about $900 (used), you should also look at that.

I really do not get what you want and at the same time I absolutely understand you. I, too, had the same problem as you when I started. I simply wanted the best of the best, which fits in my budget. After I realised the best of the best is enormously expensive, I just bought the 350D with some lenses instead. That blew me away, and still does. You might not be interested in a used camera, you should look, then, at the cheapest you can get. Take the 1100D for instance, or the 550D. Bundle them with a good lens and just shoot. I still use the 350D, also ''professionally'' (I earn money with the photos taken).

Good, what I wanted you to say. The 350D with a good lens will be more than enough for you. Go buy one and learn photography. There's no way you should get the best camera because that one doesnt exist, and will never. You will need to spend half the money on a lens they say, and it's true. That means that for the $2000 budget you have, you will be able to get a wide-angle L-lens with 7D (or 60D). That is the best you can get, and not the 5D III (why is it not good enough for its class?!), because you wont have any cent left for a (decent) lens.

Ill just quit now. There's too much to respond in this topic. Oh, and last but not least: Phil is 100% right. Oh, and about the lens physics: There's Full Frame and Cropped Frame lenses. FF lenses are much more expensive than the CF lenses, plus FF cameras need much and much more expensive glass to really outshine the CF bodies. The Canon 350D with the Tamron 17-50 (or any L lens of course) outshines the 5D III easily when that one's fitted with a not so good lens. Go read something, study, and whatever to become really smart about cameras. Dont just think you are smarter than we, and accept, for now, that we are.

And where ever it may go to: the 6D will not give you pleasing images. Simply because you have too less money left for a good lens.

Every DSLR on the market could give you that, when fitted with a good lens. Could you tell me what the differences are between a FF camera and a CF camera?Also, without any knowledge you wont ever get the quality out of a FF to see the difference between a FF and a CF body. Unless when photographing in complete darkness. Just save for the 7D with an L lens, you would be surprised.

A CF has a just smaller sensor, so it only uses the best part of a FF lens. (the outer parts of the lenses are the worst)With a FF camera you use the outer parts also, so you would be getting a less sharp or whatever image than when using a CF camera. Therefore you need very expensive FF glass to compensate, and since you have such a small budget, it's impossible, for you, to get the IQ you want with a FF camera. Youd be better off with a good CF camera and a good FF lens, for when you want to move on in the future to FF cameras.

Yes, but I hope you understand a very good CF lens is way cheaper than a very good FF lens. Thereby, today's CF sensors are that good that, well, they are just really good. But, also, you can take a normal quality FF lens (normal quality FF lenses are generally better than normal quality CF lenses because FF sensors are much more demanding for a better lens, in the past at least) and put it on a CF camera.

What I mean is as follows. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is an excellent CF lens. When you want to use a FF lens on the camera, you need a FF 30mm lens, and, to have the same quality and aperture as the Sigma, you (generally, for this lens not really the case!) need to spend quite a bit more. To have the same FoV on a FF camera, you need a 50mm FF lens. (as I said, it's a bad example this one) For a 50mm FF camera, you need an expensive 50mm lens.

You can, though, use that 50mm FF lens on a CF camera, but then your lens becomes a 80mm FoV lens which doesnt use the outer parts. So, you can use a cheaper FF lens because you dont need the sharpness overthere.

Im really sorry for the bad example, as the 50mm lenses are almost all great (with the 50mm 1.8 FF lens at $100 is a very sharp lens). Zoom lenses are another story though.

Depends on what you're trying to get with the lens. With the T4i you'll be getting a focal length equivalent to 38-112mm, so if you're trying to get a wide FOV, go for the 6D. If you're not, and if you can benefit from the extra reach, go for the T4i, you'll spend less and you'll have more money for future lenses

There's not just the issue of whether the 650D will be too tight at the wide angle or if the 6D doesn't "reach" far enough when zoomed in but have you considered whether you wish to shoot fast-moving objects?

I haven't seen it in practice but I can't imagine the 6D's autofocus will be as quick or as accurate as that of the 650D if you're doing a panning shot.

Of course, if you only plan on shooting stationary or slow-moving objects, the AF argument is less than critical.

As already said by other here, don't be mistaken in thinking that FF automatically means superior. Some fabulous shots can be achieved with CF sensor cameras with nothing more than knowledge and creativity to help you.

Also, as it was mentioned before, with CF sensors you get the sharpest part of the lens and the part with the least vignetting, so that's another pro if you're not using really expensive high-quality lenses.